With treaties potentially supplanting federal and state governmental authority, the President and Senate should carefully scrutinize all treaties, as a policy matter. We must jealously guard the separation of powers and state sovereignty if we are to preserve the constitutional structure our Framers gave us.

At the same time, our courts must scrutinize the federal government's powers to make and implement treaties. Our federal government is one of enumerated, limited powers, and the courts should not let the treaty power become a loophole that jettisons the very real limits on the federal government's authority.

WSJ:The Minority MakerTed Cruz hurts his party by forcing a meaningless debt-ceiling vote.

Feb. 12, 2014 7:10 p.m. ET

The Senate passed the House debt-limit increase on Wednesday, but not before some needless drama that helps to explain why Republicans remain a minority.

Democrats had enough votes to pass the increase with a simple majority, which means they would have owned the debt increase. But then Senator Ted Cruz —the same fellow who planned the GOP's shutdown fiasco in October—objected on the floor and insisted on a 60-vote majority. This is exactly what Democratic leader Harry Reid wanted because if the bill failed he would have sent the Senate home on recess and returned later this month to join President Obama in flogging the GOP as the debt-ceiling deadline neared.

The 60-vote threshold was reached only after GOP leaders Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and 10 others voted to let the final debt-ceiling vote proceed. All 12 then opposed the increase on final passage, but thanks to Mr. Cruz they had to walk the plank with Democrats on a procedural vote.

Not coincidentally, activist groups allied with Mr. Cruz announced they will use those votes in GOP primaries this year against Messrs. McConnell and Cornyn. Mr. Cruz claims to be neutral in Senate primaries, but he knew exactly what he was doing.

We're all for holding politicians accountable with votes on substantive issues, but Mr. Cruz knew he couldn't stop a debt increase the House had already passed. He also had no alternative strategy if the bill had failed, other than to shut down the government again, take public attention away from ObamaCare, and make Republicans even more unpopular.

Democrats beat the odds and retained their Senate majority in 2010 and 2012 in part because they stuck together. If Republicans fail again this November, a big reason will be their rump kamikaze caucus.

I disagree. Raising the debt ceiling is one of the occasions where negotiations can and should take place to control the rate of increases in spending. That isn't happening, but it should be.

Cruz was holding Republicans to a standard we should hold all politicians; make them cast difficult votes and make them explain their vote. If they aren't going to control spending now, they can tell us when they will.

Shouldn't there have been a promise made between the politicians and the electorate last time they upped the debt limit to come up with a plan to reform entitlements and unfunded liabilities? Shouldn't we require that promise now? Did we? No.

I get all that, but , , , reality check please. "Intelligence is the amount of time it takes to forget a lesson." What happened a few months ago? We shouldn't have lost that, but we did, and did so quite badly.

I saw a snippet on FOX yesterday wherein Cruz was asked about the US accepting refugees from Syria. He was in favor. I readily grant that the humanitarian crisis there is huge (millions of refugees if I am not mistaken) but our taken people in seems a poor idea to me. His expressed thought was that the refugees in question would be properly vetted. This I seriously doubt.

I get all that, but , , , reality check please. "Intelligence is the amount of time it takes to forget a lesson." What happened a few months ago? We shouldn't have lost that, but we did, and did so quite badly.

I am not in full agreement as to what happened, didn't happen or should have happened a few months ago.

Republicans held the power of the purse, but failed to come together and exercise that responsibility. Instead they funded and implemented Obamacare while knowing they were elected to stop it, knowing it would do irreparable harm to our country and knowing it will be nearly impossible to fully repeal once implemented.

We had a 16 day, 17% federal government employee paid vacation shutdown, that polled badly, where we clarified to the nation that Democrats would do anything to get this terrible program implemented, we clarified that Obama and the Democrats would not negotiate - for things they now have already conceded, and we clarified that Republicans all oppose it - just as the nation learned of its catastrophic, systemic defects and failure. Now, a few months later, Republicans are poised to gain in the House and compete for about 9 additional Senate seats while Democrats are running scared, distancing, delaying and hiding from the President and his signature program. The lesson from this is what?

Cruz has merely caused Republicans to put votes down to authorize the status quo - more government borrowing as we end the 'sequester' and enter our multi-trillion-dollar health insurance company bailout future. Let Representatives and Senators on both sides cast votes and explain them to their constituents. What's wrong about that?

We have seen the other side of the coin. The sane, reasonable, sensible Republicans (who call Cruz a looney bird) say lay low, win the next election, and then one more two years later, all three chambers, let this massive dependency program get fully entrenched - and repeal it later. Much later. Really? In 11 months it will still be vetoed. In three years, then we really mean it?

Look back to the last time go-along, get-along Republicans controlled all chambers, 2003-2006. We had a surge of economic growth based on tax rate cuts. We had federal tax revenues and employment surging making it possible to get more and more people off of the dependency of government. Did we? No. Why not? Because no one like Ted Cruz stepped forward to hold his own party accountable.

Understood, but did we win or lose last time? I submit that even though we were right, we lost. Why repeat the experiment? There is some riff about "Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results , , ,"

That was not much of a political loss if Republicans are now contending or leading in most key races. It was far less of a loss than not taking a stand, in my view. And this* is different. He didn't try to shut down the government; he called for a vote that exposed which Republicans will cave first when Democrats play tough. Some voters want to know that. 'Worst' case, which wasn't going to happen, was that if congress failed have to raise the debt ceiling we would have a balanced budget. We would have to live within our means, with our tax rates all freshly raised and 5 years of wesbury-style, galloping growth behind us out of a recession. Shouldn't we have a balanced budget by now? And then the Democrats could run on Obamacare, new deficit spending, and the great economy.

We can move this to 'the way forward', but once in a while we should ask ourselves, what are we for, and when are we for it. We are for greater liberties, which means smaller government and more spending restraint - everyday of the year, not just in ads and campaigns. The ongoing debt ceiling problem is a reminder of the larger problems, runaway spending and unfunded liabilities. You raise the debt ceiling in exchange for spending concessions such as entitlement reform. Or you dissent. Maybe somebody finds out we are serious. Instead we funded the largest entitlement ever, they said no concessions whatsoever and we said okay. It is that strategy that divides the party and the movement, not one Senator calling for the Senate to use Senate rules on a multi-trillion dollar, multi-generational question.

January 23, 2014:http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=824The President and Congress should unite in a coherent and sustained program to support the opposition and encourage Yanukovych to both rescind his restrictions on the rights of the Ukrainian people and renounce violence against those engaged in protest... The Department of State should be commended for implementing visa bans against Ukrainian officials this week. We should follow-up swiftly with targeted economic sanctions as well, including freezing the assets of those responsible for the violence.

January 28, 2014, 12:39 pmCruz: Putin plays chess, Obama plays checkers on foreign policyhttp://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/196646-cruz-putin-plays-chess-obama-plays-checkers-on-foreign-policyHe also called on Obama to take a more active role in helping pro-democracy protesters in Ukraine who are trying to break the grip of Russian influence.The Obama administration should consider short-term and long-term steps such as setting up a free-trade zone to help bolster the Ukrainian economy and protect it from Russian economic coercion, he said.Cruz said the United States should share the expertise of American companies to assist in the development of Ukraine’s domestic shale gas reserves and assist with the construction of liquid natural gas import infrastructure so that the former satellite state does not have to depend on Russia as a source.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wowed the beltway elite and even Democrats during Saturday's annual Gridiron event, showing why the Ivy Leaguer has confounded and been vilified by many with whom he shares the same intellectual pedigree.

The annual D.C. roast is hosted by the exclusive Gridiron Club, which is composed of D.C.'s mainstream and "elite" journalists.

Cruz has degrees from Princeton and Harvard, which those in the permanent political class covet, and he can do their social rituals better than they can. Yet Cruz refuses to be co-opted by them politically, instead choosing to be a staunch conservative who represents the grassroots that sent him to Washington to fight against both political and media establishments.

Politico's Mike Allen said that Cruz, "crushed his speech – even Dems said he knocked it out of the park." In an appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry and Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist, the Florida gubernatorial candidate who wants to be loved by the permanent political class, Cruz called himself the "anti-Crist" in what could be the perfect description of Cruz's brand of politics.

He also made fun of his filibuster and tense relationship with the GOP leadership:

And when Leader McConnell wants something, who am I to say no?… Twenty-one hours and 19 minutes [in the filibuster] – hearing nothing but my favorite sound. We’re talking Biden territory. And so typical of how this town works, they cut me off just as I was coming to my point.

By the way, does anyone know the record for the longest speech ever at this dinner? I looked it up, and in the late 1800s, New York Senator Chauncey DePew enthralled his audience until well past midnight. So LOOSEN UP THOSE WHITE TIES, settle back, and what do you say we make Gridiron history? [Applause]

...n front of conservative and tea-party audiences, I am hailed as the anti-Obama. But tonight, I’m the anti-Crist.

He also said his relations with McCain have greatly improved because "This week… he’s only once demanded a public apology from me. As wackobirds go, that’s pretty good." He also poked fun at his having been born in Canada, mocked Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and compared his Cuban dad to Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-FL), who was also from Cuba:

Canadians are so polite, mild-mannered, modest, unassuming, open-minded. Thank God my family fled that oppressive influence before it could change me.

I might add that Canadians are also extremely efficient. No red tape at all in handling my application to renounce citizenship. They had that thing approved before I even sent it in. The simple truth is that for a very brief time my family lived on the plains of Calgary. That does not make me a Canadian. Although Elizabeth Warren says that it does make me an Algonquin Indian. Of course, my family is Cuban… At first, when he got here, my dad washed dishes for 50 cents an hour. He was so low on the totem pole where he worked that even Marco Rubio's father bossed him around.

Cruz also blasted Obama's executive orders and his disregard for the law: "We are still a nation of laws. You just have to check with Barack Obama every day to see what they are."

WASHINGTON—Rushing to an afternoon vote last month, Sen. Ted Cruz hopped the underground tram to the U.S. Capitol from his office across the street.

The Texan planted his black ostrich cowboy boots in the middle of the small subway car without getting so much as a nod from the other senators—Republican or Democrat—amiably chatting or huddled in their seats.

Mr. Cruz finds himself standing alone a lot these days. His response to the cold shoulders: "The establishment despised Ronald Reagan " before he became president, "but the people loved him."

For the 43-year-old Republican, the Reagan name illuminates his political life's fundamental dichotomy: Many senators from his own party mistrust and dislike him, but many conservatives elsewhere worship him.

How Ted Cruz Followed His Boyhood Idol to Washington

Acquiring his Cuban-immigrant father's love of Ronald Reagan, the Texan geared his life toward emulating the president.

He lives that contrast daily. Moving into the vast congressional hallway that afternoon, he attracted a burst of adulation from tourists. "Ted Cruz, I love you!" shouted a Massachusetts father, William Harvey, there with his young daughter. "President Cruz in 2016!"

Mr. Cruz's quest to position himself as a latter-day Reagan has led him to defy his party's elders on handling issues such as debt and health care, and to become the national face of last fall's government shutdown. His methods have led political rivals to brand him as an extremist and made him the target of talk-show lampoonings.

His quest also has put him in the center of national political debate, a status validated when Vice President Joe Biden singled him out as a threat in a recent fundraising appeal.

"No one has vaulted onto the national political stage faster and caused more of a sensation than Ted Cruz," says Vin Weber, a former congressional leader with strong ties to today's GOP heads. "But his style and tactics in accomplishing that create questions about his ability to broaden his appeal."

Despite Mr. Cruz's high profile, even many Republican colleagues don't know much about the man, what drives him or where he's headed. Mr. Cruz, in a series of interviews over several weeks in the Capitol, in his Washington home and during trips to public and private meetings in Texas and Iowa, spoke of how his childhood devotion to Mr. Reagan drove his education and informs his politics.

In a nutshell, he positions himself as one who can lead the GOP back to majority status by sticking with conservative positions rather than by moderating them, as he says losing Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain and Bob Dole did.

That is a position designed to contrast him with party-establishment favorites such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who are less wedded to conservative social positions, and with Sen. Rand Paul, a fellow tea-party favorite whose reticence about foreign commitments contrasts with the more muscular global role—including in the Ukraine crisis—that Mr. Cruz and other Reagan disciples advocate.

He deflects questions about the 2016 race but shows signs of toying with presidential plans: His itinerary this month included trips to early presidential-primary states New Hampshire and South Carolina.

"The best thing I can do is to stand up and lead now" rather than get involved in 2016 speculation, Mr. Cruz says.

In his Senate office, Mr. Cruz sits under a giant oil painting of Mr. Reagan at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, where the president declared: "Tear down this wall." Mr. Cruz commissioned the painting after his surprise 2012 Senate victory.

To understand him, Mr. Cruz says, look back to the 9-year-old Rafael "Rafelito" Edward Cruz alongside his father, cheering Mr. Reagan during televised presidential debates. His Princeton University roommate, David Panton, recalls Mr. Cruz saying his life's goal was to "become like Ronald Reagan—a principled conservative and great communicator."

Some in the GOP take exception to his claim to the Reagan mantle. Mr. Paul appeared to be doing exactly that when he said on a news show recently: "Sometimes people want to stand up and say, 'Hey, look at me, I'm the next Ronald Reagan.' Well, almost all of us in the party are big fans of Ronald Reagan." Sen. Paul's office didn't respond to inquiries.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz poses in his office before the oil painting he commissioned of Mr. Reagan giving the Brandenburg Gate speech in which the president declared: "Tear down this wall." Melissa Golden for The Wall Street Journal

Critics say Mr. Cruz's rapid rise has shown a drive to propel himself to stardom rather than to solve his party's or country's problems. Until he teamed up with a Democrat this month to pass a resolution opposing a visa for an Iranian ambassador, he hadn't logged a significant legislative win. "I try to stop bad things from happening," he says.

Some Republicans worry that Mr. Cruz might prove too conservative for a general-election audience, much as some other tea-party favorites have proven incapable of winning Senate elections in the last two election cycles.

And Mr. Cruz needs to demonstrate more of Mr. Reagan's ability to "find common ground," says Roger Porter, a Harvard government professor who served in the Reagan White House. Republicans will be "looking for a standard-bearer who can win and work with others to govern effectively."

Polls this early in a presidential cycle are notoriously unreliable, but the data so far suggest Mr. Cruz would start a quest for the Republican nomination in the middle of the pack. A McClatchy-Marist poll this week showed him sixth among 10 potential Republican candidates tested.

Mr. Cruz's rabble-rousing style has paid off with a $1.5 million book deal and $4 million in political donations last year.

That style clearly resonates in some voter blocs. "I just came from Washington, D.C., and it's great to be back in America," he said to cheering crowds at an Iowa convention of home-schoolers in March, where his attendance fueled speculation about his presidential ambitions. An audience member yelled that the Washington establishment doesn't listen to "the people." Mr. Cruz shot back: "They're not listening to me, either."

Yet despite cultivating an outsider image, Mr. Cruz carries impeccable establishment credentials: degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law School and a Supreme Court clerkship. His wife, Heidi, whom he met when both worked on the 2000 Bush campaign, is a vegetarian with a Harvard M.B.A. and is a Goldman Sachs managing director. The couple lives in a Houston high-rise with a live-in nanny for their daughters, 3 and 6.

Mr. Cruz's admiration for Mr. Reagan began with his father, Rafael Cruz, who often told his story of fleeing Cuba with $100 sewn into his underwear. The elder Mr. Cruz started a Houston seismic-data company, briefly moving with his wife, Eleanor, to Canada, where Mr. Cruz was born in 1970 before the family returned to Houston.

When Sen. Cruz's Canadian birthplace came up last year as a presidential-bid issue, he said his American-born mother—she is of Irish-Italian descent—made him a "natural-born citizen," as the Constitution requires.

"Before Ted was 10," his father says, "he was jumping into our dinner-table conversation about replacing the leftist government of Jimmy Carter with a constitutional conservative like Ronald Reagan."

The father sent his son to a Baptist school with strict standards and conservative values. In home and school, Sen. Cruz says, he learned the socially conservative values he pushes today: opposition to most forms of abortion and to gay marriage, for example.

To improve himself in the style and substance he idolized in Mr. Reagan, Sen. Cruz says, in high school he joined the Constitutional Corroborators, a traveling troupe on the Texas Rotary Club circuit, where he recited by memory the Constitution and words of the Founding Fathers.

At Princeton, he showed up as "much the same person he is today," says Mr. Panton, his former roommate, now an Atlanta investor. "Surrounded by liberals, Ted was resolute with his conservative principles," he says. "Even in the dorm room, he talked about Ronald Reagan all the time."

Mr. Cruz admits to some youthful indiscretions. At Princeton, he built up a $2,000 debt playing poker and had to borrow from his aunt to pay it off. At Harvard, he acted in "The Crucible" but was once so hung over he had to leave the stage.

His Reagan obsession permeated his personal life. Before his marriage ceremony, he took the wedding party for a picnic at the Reagan ranch.

"I grew up in a nonpolitical, Patagonia-wearing, mountain-climbing, vegetarian family in California," Mrs. Cruz says of her courtship. "And then I fall in love with a Hispanic man from Texas who loves the game of politics, is a policy wonk, and…lives and breathes the values of Ronald Reagan."

In 2003, he returned to Texas to become solicitor general responsible for the state's appellate cases, winning cases such as one that allowed a Ten Commandments monument to stand on the state Capitol grounds.

While working in private practice, he visited Washington in 2010 and hit it off with newly elected Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), who encouraged him to run for Senate.

The day Mr. Cruz launched his Senate bid, he polled 2%. Challenging an establishment candidate, he modeled his campaign after Barack Obama's 2008 grass-roots push for the presidency, garnered strong tea-party enthusiasm—and won.

When Mr. Cruz arrived at the U.S. Capitol, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell sought to bring him in the fold by taking him on new-senator trips to Afghanistan and Israel and as his guest to a glitzy Washington gala.

But Mr. Cruz says that warmth dissipated when he quickly dispensed with the unwritten rules of Senate etiquette, particularly the one that said a new senator should be seen but not heard, because "I didn't think representing my constituents was optional."

After he opposed the nomination of Senate Republican alumnus Chuck Hagel as defense secretary—grilling Mr. Hagel sharply in hearings about positions he worried were anti-Israel and weak on Iran—Mr. Cruz says some GOP senators told him that he crossed the line in his strident challenge of the nomination.

He enhanced his notoriety as a rhetorical bully in a Senate Judiciary hearing on gun control after the Sandy Hook school shootings. His questioning of veteran Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), who was pushing to reinstate the assault-weapons ban, came across as a lecture, prompting her to lash out, "Senator, I'm not a sixth-grader."

The measure failed. Soon after, Sen. Feinstein, when encountering him in the Senate elevator, would greet him: "Hello, tough guy."

When a bipartisan group unveiled a comprehensive immigration plan, Mr. Cruz criticized its border-security provisions and path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Later, he infuriated House Republican leaders by denouncing their immigration plan as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

His next gambit: an all-out effort to defund Obamacare. Despite resistance from Senate Republicans and Democrats, he stood up before an empty Senate on Sept. 24 to argue Congress shouldn't renew government funding while the health law remained on the books. "I rise today in opposition to Obamacare," he said, launching a 21-hour monologue that included a reading of "Green Eggs and Ham."

Mr. Cruz was roundly pilloried. "Technically, this was just a tantrum," said Jimmy Kimmel on his talk show. "And while the speech was not a record for the longest ever given on the Senate floor, it did tie the record for the dumbest."

While he lost his defunding attempt, he says he finds victory in the low approval ratings of Mr. Obama and his health-care law.

Relations with GOP colleagues chilled noticeably, he says. At weekly Senate GOP lunches, some colleagues went out of their way to avoid sitting beside him, several attendees say. "Some aspects of the Senate are like the junior-high lunchroom or 'Mean Girls' cliques," Mr. Cruz says.

He doubled down on his approach this year, angering Republicans by insisting on a procedural vote on raising the federal debt ceiling rather than letting it slide through the Senate—thus forcing the GOP leader and 11 other Republicans to vote with Democrats. "Why are you throwing Republicans under the bus?" he recalls a colleague asking at a lunch. "I'm not," he responded. "I'm urging us to quit bankrupting the country."

Faced with Mr. Cruz's defiance, the Republican Senate leadership has frequently acted as if he were invisible, he says. Mr. McConnell maintains severely limited contact with Mr. Cruz, occasionally refusing to even say hello when they pass. Mr. McConnell has disagreed strongly with Mr. Cruz's tactics, a McConnell spokesman says.

Mr. Cruz says he won't temper his approach. Despite being named vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee last year, he says he now refuses to raise money for the group because it has chosen to back incumbents in GOP primaries, sometimes against tea-party candidates.

In a meeting in his office last month, he reviewed the draft speech for the following day's appearance at Conservative Political Action Conference, a gathering where most GOP presidential hopefuls would appear. "I want to tell them they don't need to be scared," he told his staff, "that we can win again by following Reagan's example of standing on principle and campaigning against Washington."

At the CPAC conference, he took that point further by criticizing by name Messrs. Romney, McCain and Dole for losing by moderating their positions. He promptly earned a rebuke from Mr. McCain, who demanded an apology for the ailing Mr. Dole. Mr. Cruz later praised Mr. Dole as a war hero, but never apologized.

Some CPAC attendees didn't seem to mind. "Sometimes having the right enemies is as important as having the right friends," says one, Sarasota, Fla., investor George Templeton.

Mr. Cruz vaulted to second place in the CPAC straw poll after Sen. Paul, from seventh a year earlier.

Later that day, at a conference hosted by the Center for Security Policy, Mr. Cruz said his foreign policy is between Mr. Paul's nonintervention leanings and Mr. McCain's more activist world approach. "My views are very much the views of Ronald Reagan," he said, "which I would suggest is a third point on the triangle."

Mr. Cruz's positions endear him to the grass-roots conservative movement. Back in Texas, he is casting a bigger shadow now that Gov. Rick Perry isn't seeking re-election. In last month's Texas primaries, Mr. Cruz endorsed five candidates, four of whom won. Some office seekers now identify themselves as "Cruz Republicans."

A poll this week by Public Policy Polling showed 47% of Texas voters surveyed approved of Mr. Cruz, more than approved of Gov. Perry or Texas' other GOP Senator, John Cornyn.

Washington has begun to acknowledge he has arrived. He returned from Texas to speak at the Gridiron Dinner, an exclusive political-journalistic annual event. He got a $15 haircut from the Capitol barber and reviewed his remarks, prepared with the help of professional joke writers.

Before the dinner, he played George Strait's country music in his apartment above a museum overlooking the Capitol. He disappeared into the bedroom in bluejeans, emerging in a white tie and coattails. Mrs. Cruz, 41, had arrived in town and unhappily spied his favorite bachelor meal, cans of Campbell's Chunky soup; she is trying to get him to eat less processed food.

At the dinner, he played off his reputation as an egotist disliked by Democrats and Republicans alike, and he got a big laugh by saying his 21-hour speech included "nothing but my favorite sound"—his own voice.

The next day, Mr. Cruz was back on the road to slam the establishment.

All signs point to a presidential bid. Mr. Cruz says he's traveling to "fire up the grass roots." Yet a new video on his website filled with fiery stump lines is more of a presidential commercial than a voter update. A new super PAC, Draft Ted Cruz for President, launched last month. On his fourth Iowa swing in just a few months, he visited the crop-and-cattle farm of Bruce Rastetter, an influential Republican whose support is sought by GOP presidential hopefuls. Mr. Rastetter was noncommittal.

At a Cerro Gordo County GOP dinner, local Republican activist Paul Pate described Mr. Cruz's venture into Iowa, home of the first presidential caucuses: "This is the senator's off-Broadway performance to give him a chance to work on his message."

Mr. Cruz is also making some progress working across the aisle. He joined Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) as a co-sponsor on her military-sexual-assault bill that narrowly failed last month. His bill demanding the Obama administration bar a visa for Iran's new United Nations ambassador—because of his affiliation with the 1979 American embassy seizure—passed unanimously because of an unlikely partnership with Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and was signed by Mr. Obama Friday.

"I'll work with Democrats, Republicans, independents, libertarians," Mr. Cruz says. "Heck I'll even work with Martians to get this country back on track."

Some fellow Senators still apparently aren't ready. After a recent floor vote, Mr. Cruz entered an elevator occupied by three lawmakers; none greeted him. After a silent ride to the basement for the subway, Mr. Cruz said: "Have a great day."

Me too, but I fear a) he tends to be tone deaf on certain issues; STRONGLY intellectual he tends to be weak on communicating with those who use emotion as their dominant modality.b) complete lack of executive experiencec) apparently not much time or thought over time to international issues.

Agree on all three. He will connect emotionally just fine with people that start on his side. The biggest question I have for all of them is who will rise up with the charisma (and emotion) to lead with our principles and connect with people who used to vote differently, moderate or liberal. We need to change millions of hearts and minds, not just eek out one win while the opponent is down. You have to bring the people with you to pass )or repeal) legislation even if you win the Presidency, House and Senate.

Ted Cruz is an extremely valuable asset even if he never rises above Senator - and his influence goes up every time we send him another like-minded Senator - or President.

Not sure what to make of this article about Cruz. Especially from the Post. The "established" insider right is clearly going after Cruz. I don't get the impression anyone one of them is necessarily trying to form any alliance with him.

Not sure what to make of this article about Cruz. Especially from the Post. The "established" insider right is clearly going after Cruz. I don't get the impression anyone one of them is necessarily trying to form any alliance with him.

It looked to me like a sweeping hit piece that landed no punch. Cruz, they say. is burning bridges and has no loyalty - right while he is making the biggest splash since entering the Senate of any new Senator since Obama, and he has done it with substance, not sizzle. His loyalties are to principles and his following is with the people not the Bob Doles, Trent Lotts of the Senate cloak room.

They were just accusing him of being Speaker Cruz when he called House Republicans together and stopped Boehner and a bad immigration bill. That is a lot of national clout for a freshman, junior Senator from a party out of power, on a very big issue.

@ Marc, I'd be curious to know where you think Cruz is vulnerable... My take is he is the 'best man standing' for a lot of the reasons Doug mentioned, but I am somewhat afraid that he is simply TOO conservative to be electable. But partly, I acknowledge that that is because at least part of me is subconsciously buying into the MSM argument that such a thing as 'too conservative' actually exists so therefore we should 'run a Chris Christie'-- to which a much larger part of me says flatly: 'No'.

I DO believe people can be convinced of the value and benefit of Reaganesque conservatism and I believe Cruz could sell it competently-- provided he gets the pulpit-opportunity. And I recognize what an uphill battle it will be as the attacks are already starting. Also, one only needs to look at the government shutdown to see that Cruz took as many bullets in the back from his own party as he ever did from Democrats, which concerns me A LOT. And then you have the 'WaWa' phenomena, where MSNBC (for example) recut Romney's speech simply to make him look like an idiot. That is what I mean by getting the 'pulpit opportunity'-- I am not sure how conservatives overcome the current media bias AGAINST conservatism except via social media and I believe even that is only partially effective as most people tend to tune out. This is what attracts me to Paul, is that he could potentailly reach across the aisle to attract other voters, certainly independents that I belive Cruz might lose. But, we have not been doing very well playing the safe bets.

Regarding managing the party, personally, I am waiting on a (hopeful) Republican reversal of the Congress in November, at which time I plan to become *a lot* more vocal with members of Congress 'in general' about demanding action from the RNC , as at that point there will be no excuses remaining about why they 'tried but can't'. My Rep is Amash, who tends conservative, and my Senators are Stabenow and that gas bag Levin, who is retiring. Meaning: I already know how Amash is likely to vote, which is favorable to Constitutional issues, and I already know how Levin will vote which is almost always straight DNC on primary issues. Stabenow also usually tends to vote left, but I believe she is at least 'somewhat responsive' (unlike Levin) which makes her worth contacting occassionally. But, point: calling my own reps is unlikely to produce results that aren't *already* happening. If we reach such point where conservatives control both houses, I think it will be beholden on people to reach BEYOND there own reps to demand action from the RNC in general. The Boehner 'we tried our best' excuse-making days have gotta go.

Back to Cruz, I'd just be curious what your concerns may be. I am not trying to make a refutational case for Cruz, per se, just attempting to share my thoughts.

In my sense of things culturally he has a tin ear, and will do quite poorly in carrying our message to those who are not already believers.

I doubt his political judgment. Yes he was right on the "government shutdown" but our side got set back badly.

He utterly lacks executive experience and his legislative experience is , , , thin. What legislation has he sponsored? What has he done that shows he can work well with others to get things done?

Foreign affairs?

Humans have four basic modalities: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. Cruz is OVERWHELMINGLY a thinker-- who for all his considerable IQ has little idea how to communicate effectively with other modalities.

Valid points, all, thanks.... I think part of the reason he resonates with me is that I also tend toward the 'cerbrally tone deaf'. Although I didn't miss the fact that you said you like him in the first post.

As to the lack of specific legislation, that is what I meant about the Congress and why I brought it up... what have ANY of them done in the face of outright Constitutional tramplingthat we could point to in the last six years? That is why I say that I'm waiting on Nov. If the R's win and STILL don't have the guts/ capacity/ get-it-togetherness to act, I will not be voting R any longer.

Personally, I like Cruz precisely BECAUSE he attempted to lead people up and over the wall during the shutdown. I realize it hurt the party in the media, but my take is that that was mostly because people ON OUR SIDE didn't follow him, supposedly because the 'timing was off' or whatever. So, we need to take that for what it says. But personally, I like Cruz *because* he's evidently not afraid of a fight and not afraid to show leadership in the face of opposition. Like I said, playing the 'soft bets' hasn't exactly worked out.

I admit to regulalry going back and forth on the idea of whether I believe a 'real' conservative candidate would be a Godlwater, or a Reagan so I may be talking out of both sides of my mouth a little. Of the entire pack of 'potentials', Cruz is my personal favorite for 2016, so that's why I wanted to hear your crticisms of him. I tend to think sometimes I have already made up my mind, which is kinda dumb since he hasn't even declared.

The political result of the "shutdown" is not exactly what the media-based conventional wisdom tells us. It was a 17% "shutdown" for 16 days. Republicans only delayed the rollout of one failed new program, Democrats shut down the government. Republicans clarified their opposition to Obamacare just before America found out it was a disaster. The poll that matters is Nov 2014, not Oct 2013. Polls today say Democrats now have no chance of taking the House and every chance of losing the Senate. But Cruz and Mike Lee et al were wrong to rock the boat?! Our Mike has this right (IMHO), rock the boat.

Ted Cruz has no executive experience. Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, all have that same missing piece, and Abraham Lincoln too! While the governors with executive experience mostly lack foreign policy and national policy experience, as Reagan did. But we will have to choose on of them anyway.

Crafty wrote: "Humans have four basic modalities: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. Cruz is OVERWHELMINGLY a thinker-- who for all his considerable IQ has little idea how to communicate effectively with other modalities."

Very well put. More simply I would ask whether or not Cruz has the charisma and ability to connect with people who are not already conservative, and draw tens of millions to the cause if placed at the top of the ticket. I don't know the answer to that. I will be supporting the one who I think can do that.

Also, well put, and echoing what Marc said: I have wondered about Cruz's sex appeal to non-conservatives myself. He is ceratinly articulatem, but he comes across as a little 'stiff'; and perhaps 'so smart as to be intimidating' for some people. As we saw, that was fatal for Romney. People appear to want a 'sax playing president' these days. But maybe that is how it has always been, I think Regan's greatest strength was his cross party personability.

I have heard this story too, but the bias throughout this report is a bit hard to swallow."Cruz, who almost single-handedly caused the last government shutdown" - Who caused the 16 day, 17% shutdown?? The people who funded the government or the people who wouldn't?

- Whose fault is it that the vote to defund the executive action over existing law failed?

Why are R's voting to fund a Democrat budget for one year after the Republicans take the Senate?Why does it have to be a CRomnibus no one has read instead of funding the government, department by department, line by line, through to the start of the next congress?Why is it Republicans fault if Democrats shut the government down, again? Because Obama and MSNBC said so? Who cares if Obama gets a radical Surgeon General at this point? Will they order more new laws for Republicans to fund? 3 quotes are from Lindsey Graham who favors unilaterally surrendering the filibuster back to the Democrats, immediately, anyway.

When the leaders make a deal, should everyone fall in line, no matter your view or your conscience?

Maybe the vote he forced WILL matter in 2016. Maybe he was right about that last time. The midterms went pretty well.

Well, I'm thinking having 9 more Rep senators would have made for different results overall.

They're coming in 3 weeks, but we're funding amnesty (and Obamacare) as permanent programs that can't be removed by the new majority. Someone stood up and called for a vote on that. Only in Washington does that cause 88 liberal judges to get lifetime appointments. Rules are set or changed on the whim of the majority. Then blame for the result goes to anyone who disagrees.

Don't use logic, common sense or passed laws to try to understand this.